Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Giovanni di Stefano

Where is the proof he wants the article gone
I flagged the nom with fact. We need evidence the actual subject and not some impostor has officially asked for the article's removal or at least indicates he wants it gone. It would also be helpful to know exactly why he wants it gone and what steps short of deletion will address his concerns. Absent proof he wants it gone the nomination should be withdrawn. The two links provided do not say he wants the article gone, only that he wants libelous material gone and wants the identities of those who posted it. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For 50 million euros, I'd say he wants the article gone. Risker (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is any proof but I do know he has been informed of this afd. di Stefano has stated he wants a balanced article. Thanks, SqueakBox01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Squeakbox: A balanced article is fine if it doesn't give WP:UNDUE weight where a non-balanced article is warranted.  Articles about people who are generally thought of in a very good or very bad light, such as living versions of Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler, would not be "balanced," they would reflect the available source materials and would probably be about as balanced as their portrayals in the non-yellow-journalism media.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All the bad sources generally date from the late nineties into this century, the current media coverage is very positive, this character is neither Hitler nor Mother Theresa but his reputation as a living person is clearly much more important to him and his family, to characterize him as a baddie is the problem. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Risker, I hope that was a joke. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well unless Risker is worth 50 million Euros be assured it was a joke. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, its a reference to a legal threat posted by the subject today on the talkpage. He claims to be suing me, Wikimedia and sundry others for 50 million euros in Italy. Avruch  T 01:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know it was him? davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it was a link to his blog, hosted by his law firm? Avruch  T 01:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thinking it wasn't him is a red herring, lets not go down that one. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the post in question. To it's reliability or seriousness I cannot speak.--Docg 01:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Verification.
The subject has in the past requested deletion. otrs 2007042410006438. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a login. How do I get one?  Or, can you paste the text here if it's not prohibited?  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The foundation privacy policy, and policy on nonpublic data, I won't be able to paste the text. You can ask another member for review if need be.  Let me know if you need this, and I'll point you in the correct direction.  Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you need to have a wikimedia account. I'd like to see the text, too, if possible.  Celarnor Talk to me  01:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is prohibited. The subject has communicated via e-mail with WP:OTRS. Scream is an OTRS member and is confirming this. You need to take his word for it, or give the ticket number he's quoted to another member of OTRS who can look at it and confirm. That's all you can get.--Docg 01:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And what we get is great, no need for doubting here (I am not in OTRS)01:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

Any objections to semi-protection?
This WP page is currently under attack by a roving band of anonymous editors who might or might not be User:Grawp. Semi-protection will solve this problem but it will prohibit anonymous users from contributing to this time-sensitive discussion.

Should we ask for semi-protection for Articles for deletion/Giovanni di Stefano? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, nevermind, it's already been semi'd. # (Protection log); 20:59 . . Acalamari (Talk | contribs) protected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni di Stefano (Grawp attacks [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)))


 * While I've just protected it for a a day, I'm not sure if I should have done that protection: I participated in the AfD, but I'm prepared to either reverse my protection or remove my comment in the AfD if necessary. However, these were Grawp attacks, so I'll see what people say first. Acalamari 21:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Uncontroversial protection. You are allowed to ignore the rules to stop vandalism like this. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is a day long enough? -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's consensus for an extension, I'll extend it. I only chose a day because that was the first time that came to mind. Acalamari 21:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I only ask because I expect this discussion will attract a lot more attention over the next few days, and who is to say that the grawp-related edits will be the only vandalism edits? Given the number of edits to this page will future vandalism edits be noted in time to be undone?  Is there an argument against protecting this page at least until the discussion has concluded? -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One Argument to leave page unprotected: As this is a discussion page, legit posts from anyone, including anonymous users, should be encouraged.
 * One Argument to leave page semi-protected: So far there are few if any anonymous editors participating in the discussion, and the harm done by vandalism arguably exceeds the harm done by blocking anonymous editors.
 * There may be other arguments for and against keeping it semi-protected. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should protect this page right now, given 2 anon vandalisms form different sides of the planet. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just requested at WP:RPP -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done for two days due to Grawp attacks. I've extended my protection of the main AfD to two days as well. Any objections? Acalamari 22:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I support keeping the page semi-protected. Acalamari, you can always ask any IP editors who wish to participate to leave their AfD comments on your own personal Talk, or some other appropriate place. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support semi-protection for the duration of the AfD.  Enigma  message Review 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

24 hours and 95KB of talk
Just as a point of trivia: After almost a day, we are at over 250 edits and have almost 100KB worth of discussion. I lost track of the number of edit conflicts I ran into. I'm sure this isn't a record but it is a lot. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It has quite a way to go to meet the amount of traffic found at one or two of the GNAA afd discussions. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, but the GNAA is a large (albeit contested) association with questionable verifiability. Here we're talking about one solitary trial lawyer with obscene notability.--WaltCip (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Validity of an AFD in this case
It is of my opinion that this AFD is getting nowhere quickly, and that other options now need to be pursued. Let me summarize what is happening for those coming into the discussion late, then I will voice my opinion on what we need to do and why.
 * According to sources, an OTRS otrs 2007042410006438 stated that Mr. Stefano wanted his article deleted.
 * Mr. Stefano posted a message to his firm's blog/page noting that he is filing a law suit to the order of 50,000,000 Euros in damages against the WMF and editors in Italy.
 * Mr. Stefano asked others if they wanted to participate in a class action law suit and claims to have recieved 19 emails in one day, and claims that he wants to start a class-action lawsuit.
 * This AFD has gotten numerous "keep" votes in the past hours.

This is why AFD isn't going to work anymore: This case involves a specific OTRS email received that substantiates the main arguement of this case, detailing if it is true that Mr. Stefano wanted this article removed, and probably giving reasons for it. Since it was sent privately, it cannot be released. The only people who can make a decision on this is really the ArbCom, if it involves private data. This AFD is also something that involves fiscal responsibility, and thus is something for the office to consider. I don't think that the community can have a say on this issue, since it will possibly incriminate multiple individuals if we do not delete this page and goes beyond the scope of Wikipedia. These facts void the use of an AFD to solve this issue. It also shows that it is necessary to take action quickly in order to stop the spread of litigation to other editors. Thus, this is what I propose:
 * An ArbCom case immediately opened.
 * This case should be brought forth involving (1) Mr. Stefano, (2) The editors involved in the suit, and (3) the community. The community must have a say in this, because this involves potential policy changes. The community ought to decide the policy, while the ArbCom takes into account the private information and makes the final decision. I know that ArbCom doesn't normally handle policy decisions, like BLP stuff that should be this obvious, but as far as I can remember, we've never really been under so much pressure of litigation.
 * A stop of this AFD, with a notice to go to the ArbCom case.
 * New policy determining what will happen if this, or similar cases, is brought up again in the future.
 * Discussion involving the community as a whole, with the ArbCom making final changes to this policy as needed.
 * A statement by the Foundation detailing if this truly is an issue for the Foundation as a whole and individual projects, what will be done with it, etc.
 * A statement by the Foundation regarding what action should be taken to decrease liablilty issues for any further editors wishing to be involved.

Please consider these proposals and, if consensus is determined in the next few hours, I believe that these proposals should be acted upon. I believe time is crucial, as we need to stop other editors from making edits that could be harmful to themselves and the WMF. - ђαίгснгм   таιќ   01:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This has pretty much been the basis for most of the keep votes. The only rationale for deletion is the complaints and legal threats made by the subject.  The community of editors is not legally qualified to determine whether or not the material is actionable and warrants removal; that is the purview of the office.  AfD is not the place for this kind of discussion; AfD is for debates about notability and verifiability alone.  This should have been an ArbCom case from the start.


 * Given the nominators position in this issue (i.e, as one of the editors facing legal action in Italy), and how this action seems so hypocritical with beliefs held prior to legal threats (for example, he has a userbox protesting censorhip and a claim that NPOV should be held above everything else), I can only come to the conclusion that he's nominating it for deletion and strongly pushing "do no harm" with the hope of using it as a defense in the event of legal action against him. This isn't what AfD is for.  This is a Foundation issue, pure and simple.  This shouldn't even be here.  As editors who can't do anything else, we should continue to make this into a model BLP article with citations for every statement per our policies until the Foundation decides otherwise. Celarnor Talk to me  01:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems a reasonable course of action. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason whatsoever for any such action. We decide things by consensus. If there is anything of additional usefulness in the OTRS email that would help to get this deleted presumably permission from di Stefano can be given to make that public. If not, no dice. The ArbCom is not have the job of handling content disputes. Indeed, the above reads to me like forum shopping, declaring the AfD to be invalid after it is clear that the community consensus disagrees with deletion. Finally, Celarnor, your comment about the nominator seems uncalled for in the extreme. While I think that such deletions do constitute censorship, Lawrence in the past supported courtesy/BLP-penumbra deletions. Now, I think this is inconsistent with being extremely against censorship, but there's no issue here of Lawrence trying to get browny points for defense in a later lawsuit. Such accusations don't help matters at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, what other conclusion can you come to? Read the history yourself if you don't believe me.  Up until the point when legal threats were made, the nominator was a strong proponent of the inclusion of sourced material within the article.  The nominator's mind didn't seem to change until those legal threats were made.  Read into it what you like, I'm just making sure that relevant information regarding this nomination gets out there.  Celarnor Talk to me  03:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, you should probably review Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, in particular the ArbCom page itself. ArbCom has exactly the job of handling content disputes when other avenues have failed or when legal threats have been made.  Celarnor Talk to me  03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a pretty good idea of how the ArbCom works thank you. It doesn't handle content disputes in general. This is discussed in a variety of places including at Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement. As to your other claim, the bottom line is that this nomination is pretty consistent with Lawrence's prior attitude about BLP-penumbra issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a general content dispute. This isn't two editors disagreeing about whether or not to include information.  This isn't about some an article on a representative in a state legislature that people are arguing about including material that may paint the subject in a negative light.  Those, obviously, are not cases for ArbCom.  This is. It involves material not available to the regular editing community on OTRS that would be instrumental to our making a decision in the subjects favor, it involves banned users who have made legal threats, and it involves the strong possibility of a lawsuit against the Foundation.  From the ArbCom page: "The Arbitration Committee is a panel of experienced users that exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve, and to consider certain cases where exceptional factors such as privacy preclude a public hearing."  Communal discussion has failed.  Communal discussion has resulted in an article that has led to complaints.  Administrators and mediation have failed; legal threats have been made.  I can't think of a more likely candidate for ArbCom than this.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  03:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Communal discussion hasn't failed. Communal discussion not going the way you like it doesn't make it a failure. There's no reason to suspect that there's anything special in the OTRS tag that would make one support keeping. Indeed, a number of people with OTRS access have voted for keeping above. Jimbo and Godwin are appraised of the legal situation so if there were anything serious in play in regard to that they'd deal with it. There's no reason to not take things at face value; the community consensus is clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the arguments outlined above make this afd invalid, such an idea is directly contrary to the way things are done here. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No; things in the OTRS could help support deletion. If he can provide evidence that the cited sources are libellous, then there may be grounds for removal of content or deletion, depending on how much of the material can be disproven.  I think the article should be kept per the clear consensus here, and discussed at ArbCom if the subject continues to whine and threaten lawsuits.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Missing the point. Again, multiple people with OTRS clearance above have called for keeping. Do you have any reason to believe there's anything in the OTRS ticket that is at all relevant? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that non-OTRS editors don't have all the information that we need to make an informed decision. With the way the article as it stands, and all the information available to regular editors, the only choice is to keep; the subject is notable and verifiable.  The only thing that could demonstrate the need for this article to be deleted would be evidence that none of the cited sources in the article contained true material and thus slander/libel.  The only possible outcome of this AfD per policy-based arguments is keep; all the delete votes boil down to "We shouldn't hurt this guy".  Because the only people capable of making an informed decision on this article are the people with the ability to read the tickets, they should be the people who are making this decision, not us.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  04:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I support a keep as well. If there is a concern for the foundation, then the Office will shut it down.  I remember when Jimbo came down with force and said quite clearly "if this is important, recreate it in a year."  Leave it for the foundation to decide if it's a foundation issue, not for users (let alone users who don't even know the full extent of this situation).  Let's not even forget the horrible precedent this would set.  The last thing we need to see if the article deleted unless he gets the exact version he wants; that would just ruin the entire project at that stage.  Believe me, if it's him, we have entire government who would threaten much worse.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the consensus is clearly Keep. As for the arguments in this section 1/ Arb com has nothing to do with it. this is a matter for the community, whether it wishes to support the principles of Wikipedia or not. The arguments against keeping this articles are arguments against the foundation of Wikipedia: NPOV and V. A encyclopedia that gives in to threats by the subject of an article is not worth existing, because it will have become unreliable. we are here to provide verifiable information about encyclopedia-worthy subjects. We operate under US law, and the subject of this article is a public figure. 2/ for public figures, our role is provide verifiable and relevant information. whether they find it pleasant is not our concern. If it were, how could we cover the unpleasant side of public affairs at all? And most public affairs is somewhat unpleasant to at least some of those involved.  3/ The role of OTRS is to deal with unverifiable negative information about him, for in US law with respect to a public figure, only false information inserted recklessly or with malicious intent is libel. We operate under US law, and the subject of this article is a public figure. The role of our attorney is to advise them, and I cannot imagine he will think an article is unsupportable legally.  4/The role of the WMF board is to  support the project. If they should wish to change the project into a source for positive public relations about notable living figures, the people who contribute here and want to sustain the original principles will have two choices, to elect another board or find another project. I do not think it will come to that: I am confident that they will support the encyclopedia.  4a/ the extent to which we (there's no real distinction between ourself and th foundation--they are our delegates to take formal responsibility for the project) are morally obliged to support good faith contributors is a matter which must be decided. As mentioned, we can no longer rely on keeping a low profile. I hope we will decide to support all legitimate contributors in clear good faith to the extent practical.  That's the role of any organisation which undertakes honest publishing. It certainly is not prudent in this regard to cave in at the filing of the first lawsuit. Looking at the subject's web page, I see the headline there about this is about standing up to bullies. He's giving good legal advice. True, he thinks we're the bully, but that lack of self-perception is the reason why why people are traditionally advised not to be their own lawyers. The best way to encourage more unjustifiable lawsuits is to not defend the article.  DGG (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we have missed the point of my proposal. JoshuaZ, for your information I do support a keep. I believe that he has no business telling us what to do when we are following the guidelines to the letter. I'm not just unhappy with the consensus of the community, go look at my vote before you make statements like that please. BUT, I believe that the community has the responsibility to take this to the ArbCom when private information is involved. No other group of people is set aside to handle private information, and I agree that this isn't what ArbCom is meant for, but it is the only thing that will work. I will draft a request for Arbitration tomorrow morning, but I don't think I can do it before then. I agree with everything said, I agree with what the community says, and I agree with Celarnor that Lawrence is probably just covering himself and that this is not usual business. Everything changes psychologically when lawsuits are involved, you can't deny that. The community can choose to keep this, but I don't think that it can be confirmed until the ArbCom comes out and approves it, as they alone have the responsibility to deal with things of a confidential nature. I look forward to the filing of the request tomorrow and I hope it will clear everything up, opinions are welcome on my talk page or on the RFAR when it is posted. - ђαίгснгм   таιќ   05:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand is why you say that "only ArbCom can handle this", despite agreeing that it isn't right for ArbCom. What's wrong with letting the Office handle it?  Only they can handle matters involving real-world legal threats against the foundation. —Steve Summit (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Section move
I moved a whole section that was discussing the process rather than the deletion to the talk page. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You appear to have also moved DGG's keep !vote? <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 20:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, was it fixed, I have not looked. :) Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was in this edit. I'm sorry about that.  NonvocalScream (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OTRS and afd validity
Regarding the references to OTRS above. There is no information in that ticket that can be used to this deletion debate, other than the fact that the subject has requested deletion in the past. And the subjects request generally only comes into play when marginal notability is established. I'm afraid OTRS may not be much help here. There is certainly nothing in the ticket that needs to be pasted. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so ... a recap:


 * The only reason given for deletion is a request by the subject, which is only considered a valid reason for deletion in the case of marginable notability.
 * Consensus is clearly that the the subject is well beyond marginal notability.
 * The only deletion argument other than the nominating rationale is that "we shouldn't harm people", despite the fact there's no evidence that harm has been done, even in the last place it could possibly be found, the OTRS ticket.
 * Even under the proposed Opt-Out policy for BLPs, the subject wouldn't qualify as someone who has inserted himself into public controversy on more than one occasion.

Why is this AfD still active? <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me 18:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it is not snowballed. Early closure would definitely result in a DRV. Yiou simply have no right to challenge Lawrence's decision, backed by others, to afd the article and suggest you drop the issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would it definitely result in a DRV? Are we experiencing the Wikipedia equivalent of a filibuster here? "Backed by others" is a fairly sweeping statement considering the humongous consensus in the AFD (which is effectively a mockery of the AFD system) itself. The nom's main rationale is this: "If real people are negatively affected, we do the right thing, and stop hurting them." Most of the deletion arguments are "per nom," "fuck policy," and "do no harm."--WaltCip (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Absent the fact we are humoring a legal threat which is against policy and absent the names supporting deletion, this AfD in all other cases would have been snow closed a day ago. SorryGuy Talk  19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Exactly as above. Invalid rationale not grounded in policy or even sound reason, no policy-based or sound reason-based delete votes (as it has been pointed out, they are all PERNOM, "fuck policy", references to an essay whose subject is more grounded in libel and slander than whiny subjects, or references to policy that don't even include relevant information).  This wouldn't work at DRV any more than its worked here.  It's clearly SNOW material.  I wouldn't go so far to say that it's an invalid nom (although I do think its disturbingly close), but its had its day, and consensus is clear.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  19:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that there are plenty of delete votes (a minority, certainly, but there are still quite a few of them), I don't think this is snowable. There's clearly no consensus to delete, but I don't think there's a consensus to keep, either. I don't think you can early close an AfD as "No consensus". --Tango (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One would have to be completely crazy to close a potentially legally flammable issue as "no consensus."--WaltCip (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a consensus to keep, but under current policy of default/keep the distinction between consensus/keep and no-consensus/keep doesn't affect the outcome. A very large majority of people want to keep, and whether or not this constitutes a consensus depends largely on whether those wishing to delete will accept "keep" as an outcome without complaining.
 * In 3 more days it will all be over with anyways. Well, unless a higher power gets involved. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a bad idea to assume bad faith and falsely claim that someone like me is saying "fuck policy" which is not the case. And yes it certainly would go to DRV if it were an early closure. IMO those claiming the afd is invalid are blowing hot air and demonstrating extreme bad faith, haven't you got an encyclopedia to edit. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is bad faith to assume that I am assuming bad faith and that those claiming the AFD are invalid are assuming bad faith. My quote is indeed valid - "Fuck policy. We dictate to it, not the other way around. Policy wonks will be beaten until the encyclopedia or morale improves. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)". However, I am not "falsely claiming" that you are asking us to fuck policy.--WaltCip (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do have an encyclopedia to edit. I'd like this to end per clear keep consensus and no reason to delete so that I can go elsewhere and protect some more notable material from deletion; I'm not assuming bad faith.  I'm sure that the nominator has the best intention at heart and genuinely believes that the article should be deleted at this point; however, he has failed to provide a good, sound, logical reason for deletion, and all arguments that have been put forward in favor of deletion have been disproven time and again at the AfD.  There are several good reasons to delete an article (lack of notability, verifiability, unresolvable vandalism, etc); none were put forward by the nominator.  The only thing that he put forth was the legal threat and the subjects desire for it to be gone and an unfounded in the extreme statement that harm was being done to the subject.  An AfD without a sound logical or policy-based deletion rationale is, IMO, an invalid one.  Coupled with the clear keep consensus and the lack of original arguments by other deletion-favoring editors, there's really no reason to draw this out any longer.  Also, the "fuck policy" quote is right in the AfD; just ctrl+f "fuck policy".  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the hurry? It's pretty obvious that there will be no consensus to delete, so the article will be kept, and while the AfD is still open the article still exists. There is no difference to the fate of the article whether the AfD is closed now or in a couple of days, or whether it is closed as a Keep or a No consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right today, but have you seen the policy discussion on WT:BLP? If this were closed as no consensus, per the proposal, it would be deleted. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think any admin who would close this as no consensus is probably just this side of insane, so the policy change seems to me to be a moot point. There's an overwhelming majority for keep, definitely enough to call it a consensus. Just sift through by the numbers - if this were an RfA, and "delete" was oppose, and "keep" was support, and a bureaucrat closed as "no consensus to promote," the howls of protest for the 'crat's head would echo from all over. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because RFA works on "rough consensus", which actually just means a supermajority in practice. As far as I know, AFD is meant to be much closer to a genuine consensus, and we certainly don't have that (there are numerous vocal opposers). --Tango (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're some right, some wrong. While consensus is a part of reading AfDs, the strength of the arguments is much more important; thus far, we've yet to see a policy-based or even soundly logical reason put forth to delete, and there are at least 4 or 5 good deletion arguments put forth in the AfD.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw that proposal last night, and I'm really shocked at the support it was getting. I figured anything that would change keeping by default to deleting by default would get laughed out of any page, but it's like, 98% support.  But that's a discussion for elsewhere.  But, yeah, you'd have to have some serious issues to read this as no consensu.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can the Foundation confirm anything?
has just indicated in this AFD that he hasn't received any documents from either Giovanni di Stefano or his representatives yet. What about the Wikimedia Foundation? Can Mike Godwin confirm what di Stefano has apparently written on his blog, that the documents are on their way? A ecis Brievenbus 23:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While GdS claims to have identified me as well, I also haven't received anything. Kind of quick yet, though, and I don't know what the rules are on being served notice in Italy/EU. I'd be interested if anyone can confirm that the letter he says he wrote to the auditing firm has been received. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "The check's in the mail." — CharlotteWebb 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Update on Subject's Blog

 * Comment: Subject updated their blog; apparently Reaves sent him his personal info. He also says that a filing could take up to 8 months to complete.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)